Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on May 14, 2013 15:50:03 GMT
For those of you in the UK, you may be interested to know that the Crown Prosecution Service have recently updated their Self Defence guidelines to reflect the recent law change regarding what they term as Householder Cases.
This is to reflect that fact that you will no longer be prosecuted for using disproportionate force in your own home, were as before the change you were only allowed to use reasonable force. Of course it's not straight forward so you will need to read it to get he full jist.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on May 14, 2013 20:58:01 GMT
I will look it up but just in case I fall into numpty mode do you have a good link to the info?
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on May 15, 2013 9:45:11 GMT
|
|
|
|
Post by Allan Shepherd on May 15, 2013 22:09:23 GMT
Never ever thought anything different other than "sooner be judged by 12 rather than carried by 6" in all aspects of personal and family safety.
Best Regards
Allan
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on May 16, 2013 11:34:43 GMT
Never ever thought anything different other than "sooner be judged by 12 rather than carried by 6" in all aspects of personal and family safety. Best Regards Allan The problem with that saying is it suggests they are your only two options. The law allows you to do what is reasonable and reasonable force won't result in you ending up in-front of a jury. |
|
|
|
Post by kensei on May 16, 2013 13:10:25 GMT
Never ever thought anything different other than "sooner be judged by 12 rather than carried by 6" in all aspects of personal and family safety. Best Regards Allan I am with you on this one Allen. If someone breaks into/enters my home unwanted I have many "tools" that can be used to remind them why this is such a bad idea and If they move through my door way they will be reminded why blood is best used while on the INSIDE of your body and to be frank...I dont care much past the safety of my family. I had one occasion that a young gent, drunk out of his mind, tried to enter my home with out my approval...did not even know the lad. He woke up with missing teeth and the police pretty much told him he is lukcy to be able to worry about that, the large machette I had for cutting down a small bush I was trying to kill was at the door and that was my back up plan if the first shot did not put him down! The thing is that we put up with societies stupid half cousins far to long! |
|
|
|
Post by Allan Shepherd on May 16, 2013 20:53:57 GMT
Hi Paul
Judged by 12 rather than carried by 6 is quite simple, there IS only two options. Survive or die.
In my experience the more "options" you give someone who you do not want in your household or personal space etc the more complicated the situation becomes. Personally I want to be able to WALK away from a situation rather than be CARRIED away in a body bag.
My many years training in various disciplines and later one particular field of employment brought that message home.
Best Regards
Allan
|
|
|
|
Post by malk103 on May 16, 2013 21:06:14 GMT
I'm all for protecting my castle, prince, princess and maid Marion but if you act without reasonable thought and absolute rage then you may have to stand up in court to justify your actions.
It may be that being a MAist could go against you.
In theory we should act with calm thought and reasonable force in proportion to the attack but difficult when your life is threatened.
There was a case recently when a family were tied up to be robbed (or worse) but they got free and fought back - I was with them all the way until they chased the men down the road and knocked them unconscious - at that point it should have been the Police's job. They got away with it due to ordeal that they had gone through but technically they acted in the wrong.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on May 16, 2013 21:25:28 GMT
Hi Paul Judged by 12 rather than carried by 6 is quite simple, there IS only two options. Survive or die. But you can survive without ending up in-front of a jury, an option which "judged by 12....." doesn't offer. |
|
|
|
Post by Allan Shepherd on May 17, 2013 8:34:16 GMT
Hi Paul
Being dead does not give you that option of being judged by 12!!
The law is now more specific and gives you more latitude in defence of you life, property etc so of course be sensible as to how you use it. Hindsight is a wonderful gift IF used effectively, it ceases to be effective if you are DEAD because you have given the attacker the benefit of the doubt that did NOT and should NOT have existed in the first place.
Best Regards
Allan
|
|
|
|
Post by kensei on May 17, 2013 12:51:16 GMT
I'm all for protecting my castle, prince, princess and maid Marion but if you act without reasonable thought and absolute rage then you may have to stand up in court to justify your actions. It may be that being a MAist could go against you. here is my issue with this Mal, if someone comes into my home to harm my family and I sit their calm and try to figure out what to do next that is reasonable I am A) Brain damaged and deserve to be in this situation..and probably forgot to lock the door after leaving a tail of money to the front door B) frozen and really dont have the insight to realize that this is a real life situation and not something on the idiot box and C) maybe I just dont care that much for my family! Reality is that if some moron comes into my house with out my invitation then he is getting the FULL RAGE of my violent tendencies and probably their to kill rape and rob my family...none of which will be allowed as long as I have breath in my body! In theory we should act with calm thought and reasonable force in proportion to the attack but difficult when your life is threatened. Theory is great, but it is just that...theory! No person given a situation were someone breaks into their home will sit their and scratch their heads wondering how to deal with this situation in such a way as it will be veiwed as "Reasonable force in proportaon to the attack". Unless they are Chuck Norris...then maybe! Fact is that if someone breaks into your home, is walking towards your little boy/girl or wife/husband your instinct SHOULD be "Im going to kill this MOFO" period! No other though SHOULD come into your head other than "How AM I GOING TO KILL THIS MOFO" and pretty much that is nature and instinct. If someone has other thoughts, other than shear terror then I dont have an ounce of respect for them....nor should their family. Only two instincts that should kick in....Fight (KILL THE MOTHER F'R) or Flight (I think I just peed myself)...anything else is not acceptable of a normal human. There was a case recently when a family were tied up to be robbed (or worse) but they got free and fought back - I was with them all the way until they chased the men down the road and knocked them unconscious - at that point it should have been the Police's job. They got away with it due to ordeal that they had gone through but technically they acted in the wrong. Okay, in my home...I will kill you and wont say sorry to the family you left behind....you made up your mind to come into my home with out my permission and attack me and my family...I will be MORE than happy to use a steak knife, Hammer, sword, bat, frying pan or my hands to help you meet Jesus and I will open that door for you with no remorse. Run out of my house screaming like a little girl with various sharp objects pointing out of you and I am pretty much going to think I did my job! I am not going to follow you past my propertly line other than to say "And dont come back". |
|
|
|
Post by garage on May 19, 2013 12:23:17 GMT
What I have learned from these posts
I should have emirgrated to Canada where the law makes more sense. ( top ten regret?)
In the UK if I beat someone up in the garden I need to drag them into the house before calling the police.
In the UK I need to learn to whistle so they are facing me when I hit them.
In the UK I need to practice looking scared so I can say the force was the same level as the fear of attack.
In UK it is not Karate and you can hit them first if you feel that you are in danger.
If you go all Charles Bronson and admit it you are going to find yourself keeping Derek company and I sure that he would confirm it is not a place to be. So an an awareness of UK's stupid laws might avoid making an unpleasent situation worse.
Manslaughter happens by accident, Murder is when you put say what you are going to do, perhaps on a blog, and make it premediated.
|
|
|
|
Post by nathanso on May 19, 2013 20:38:19 GMT
Manslaughter happens by accident, Murder is when you put say what you are going to do, perhaps on a blog, and make it premediated. I am not an attorney, but my understanding (based mostly on watching TV) is that in the US, murder in the second degree is when there is malice but not premeditation, and murder in the first degree is with malice and premeditation. |
|
|
|
Post by Allan Shepherd on May 19, 2013 21:39:50 GMT
Manslaughter DOES NOT happen by accident, accidents happen by accident.
Manslaughter appears to be a plea to reduce the time spent behind bars as opposed to a murder charge.
The problem arises when they plead guilty of manslaughter on the grounds of diminished responsibility under The Mental Health Act which carries no tariff.
Best Regards
Allan
|
|
|
|
Post by nathanso on May 20, 2013 5:20:18 GMT
|
|
|
|
Post by IanM on May 26, 2013 17:49:09 GMT
Murder - intention was to kill
Manslaughter - did not intend to kill
i.e. I pull out a gun and shoot you at point blank range - murder
During an argument I punch you in the face an you fall and strike your head on the pavement and die as a result of your head injury - manslaughter as I didn't intend to kill you.
Hope this makes sense because reading it back it doesn't appear to.
|
|
|
|
Post by tomobrien on May 26, 2013 19:55:27 GMT
|
|
|
|
Post by nathanso on May 27, 2013 4:30:53 GMT
Murder - intention was to kill. I am not an attorney, but my understanding, and how I read the what laws cited above say, is that a person can be charged with murder if someone is killed durig the commission of a felony even if the death was not intentional. |
|
|
|
Post by dhodge on May 27, 2013 5:58:47 GMT
If you ever find yourself in this situation of confronting a person intent on doing you harm and you have reacted using force the best advice is to use your right not to say anything other than confirm your name DOB and address. Get legal representation and let them advice you on what you need to say. In Scotland the Police do not need to interview you in the presence of your solicitor so its best to say nothing until you have sought legal advice. Whilst co-operating with the Police is a normal (the desire to do the right thing) reaction for law abiding people it is what will get you convicted without the correct legal advice.
|
|
|
|
Post by Rob S on May 27, 2013 8:30:34 GMT
Everything is tried on a case by case method. You react, you hurt, maim or worse, you may have to go to court.
It is not up to the police, in the UK, whether or not you end up in court, it is up to the Crown Prosecution Service. The police act as agents of the court, and of course they are the first line of contact.
What you say to the police before caution and before arrival at a police station is a significant statement if it has bearing or impact, and even silences can be significant. What you say after caution is of course capable of use for or against you. This will become part of that standard if you say the wrong thing.
You will be interviewed almost certainly, especially if the damage you cause is significant, burglars will try and find a way out of their situation, and counter allegations will probably continue to be a line of defence for them.
Legal advice is surely always the better option.
Mr policeman may agree with you, he may even smile and nod his head, but he is duty bound to record what you say ... and that may have an adverse effect if you are mumbling about in shock trying to rationalise your own actions.
Reasonable force is difficult sometimes, but that will probably always be the benchmark. The question is what is reasonable?
Self defense can be used or you can stop a criminal act being committed, but the 'proportionality' will always be tested.
A recent event in the UK will see the officers involved having to justify their actions. It is the way it is. Of course you must act quickly and decisively when in danger, but before you ramble on about it to someone, you should collect your thoughts and put them in order.
If you happen to have a weapon at your front door, and pick it up, and use it, then this will definitely have bearing on your case. Why was it there? You had time to think to pick it up? Does that now become a premeditated act etc?
There is a saying, 'you have a right to free independent legal advice'. Sense says you should do that, even if you are a lawyer, since your world may just be turning upside down! That lawyer may just prevent you from babbling your way to the dock.
|
|
|
|
Post by chris313 on May 30, 2013 7:01:03 GMT
I am so thankful that I was born American.
|
|
|
|
Post by th0mas on May 30, 2013 10:07:21 GMT
I am so thankful that I was born American. What Rob is saying is just good prudence.. Infact the UK self defence laws are really good! You may have to defend yourself in court, but it is all about your personal perception of threat. Your reaction (and pre-emption) are all valid if you perceived that your life or the lives of your dependents was threatened. What is classified as "reasonable" is set by how you perceived the threat, actual or imagined. There was an interesting case a couple of years ago, where a man was attacked in his house by two burglars. A knife fight ensured, the house holder ended up killing both the attackers.. only problem was that he chased the second attacker down the street for a few hundred yards before managing to catch him and stab him to death! It was successfully argued in court that he was a victim of aggravated burglary, who entered the house armed, he had young kids and a wife upstairs... and he got off. That is an extreme example..but the law in the UK in the case of self defence is quite good. |
|
|
|
Post by chris313 on May 30, 2013 17:47:31 GMT
In America, we just have the 2nd Amendment, the Castle Doctrine, and the most heavily armed civilian population on the planet.
|
|
|
|
Post by malk103 on May 30, 2013 21:21:47 GMT
.... and probably the most people shot wether they deserve it or not.
Sorry - just pointing out a balance, although the press tend to emphasise any shootings they are actually not that common here in the UK.
|
|
|
|
Post by chris313 on May 30, 2013 21:33:14 GMT
All I know is, there's a serious reason why no one would dare behead one of our soldiers in open public.
|
|
|
|
Post by Bob Davis on May 30, 2013 21:47:45 GMT
Note to all.
I would rather people self moderated than having to step in, please think the subject matter through before the thread descends.
|
|
|
|
Post by kensei on Jun 5, 2013 14:29:07 GMT
Im with Bob on this one...dont turn this into a pissing contest of sorts!
The Americans 2nd Amend. is front and center right now due to all the violence, mass killings and home grown terrorist actions going on in their country and it can lead to alot of very intense feelings on both sides of the issue.
Keep the chatter to respectful levels and we wont have an issue....and for the record...
I am so glad that I was born Canadian...we just beat intruders with hockey sticks, beaver tails and Maple syrup bottles! ;D...then guzzle a few beers while watching recorded hockey games while listening to the queen herself...by that I mean celine of course...Eh!
|
|
|
|
Post by chris313 on Jun 5, 2013 23:54:58 GMT
Well I'll agree that it isn't something worth creating acrimony over, especially on a Shotokan karate forum. One thing warrants correction though: The Americans 2nd Amend. is front and center right now due to all the violence, mass killings and home grown terrorist actions going on in their country To be exact, Diane Feinstein's proposed Bill of numerous gun restrictions recently died in the Senate, much to the shock of the MSM, the White House, and the anti-gun lobby. They weren't expecting it to make it through the House of Representatives anyway, but they were going to use that as an issue to attack the Republicans during the 2014 mid-term elections. And it failed. In any case, the majority of Americans were against Feinstein's Bill, and with it dead in the water, much of the gun-hysteria here has faded. Gun and ammo sales are still booming though, and some manufacturers are inundated with backlogs of orders in the millions. The other point worth making, is that home-grown terrorism in America, such as what happened in Boston, has little to nothing to do with American citizens liberties outlined in the Bill of Rights, but increasingly the result of irresponsible immigration policies. But again, I'm backing off this topic, as it's not worth starting a flame-war over. In a couple weeks, Tatsuya Naka will teach a camp in new Orleans, and hopefully a discussion about the JKA's current technical characteristics can then strike up and change the mood? |
|
|
|
Post by kensei on Jun 6, 2013 20:01:23 GMT
One thing warrants correction though: Your Correction was misguided, as was expected....I was not refering to the bills and laws and the rest...also..... I was really wishing on a star that you would leave this one alone as we are obviously on opposite sides of a very politically charged fence here...but you did not leave well enough alone...and tried ever so much to get the last word in..... But as a Mod..thats my spot you are sitting in!  The other point worth making, is that home-grown terrorism in America, such as what happened in Boston, has little to nothing to do with American citizens liberties outlined in the Bill of Rights, but increasingly the result of irresponsible immigration policies. Again, not talking about the immigration policy that you all have, although the issue in boston still seems to be about how the US laws handle the right to deadly force items like explosives, but again that is for another forum. I was also not talking about the Russian immigrants that did the horrible attack on the Boston runners and crowd...I said home grown...working back wards from the last horrible showing of what a gun can do in the wrong hands and why the guns in the states will continue to kill innocents if the gun laws dont change to be even so slightly intellegent.... Newton, Accent signage Systems shootings,Sikh temple shooting Wisconsin,Aurora theatre shooting,Seatle cafe shooting,Oikos university killings, Su Jung health sauna shooting california, Fort Hood Massacre, Binghamton shootings , Virginia Tech massacre , Columbine school massacre, Lubys massacre, United states postal service shootings Oklahoma, San Ysidro MacDonalds killings......  But I get why you brought up the weak immegration acts you all have....I mean you really should keep all those innocent new americans out of the line of fire! seriously, as I set as a Mod...its time to let this one drop...any more posts about this and I am just going to save us all the reading and delete them.....fair warning. anyone want to chat about this....Go to the PM's please and thank you. |
|
|
|
Post by Bob Davis on Jun 6, 2013 23:08:09 GMT
I did say. Account removed (just so people know it was me and not James).
|
|
